Rwanda: Supreme Court has ruled on the government’s plan – everything you need to know

Published

2 years ago

November 15, 2023

admin

The government’s flagship immigration policy, known as the Rwanda plan, is hanging in the balance this morning after the highest court in the land found it to be unlawful.

But what is the scheme? Why is it so controversial? And how has it ended up in the judicial system?

The Rwanda plan was first proposed by Boris Johnson back in April 2022 as the government came under increasing pressure to tackle the growing number of small boats crossing the Channel.

The then prime minister outlined his policy that would see anyone arriving in the country illegally deported to the east African nation.

Those who successfully applied for refugee status when there would then be given the right to remain in Rwanda – not return to the UK.

But if their claim was unsuccessful, they could then be removed to their country of origin.

The deal, signed by the home secretary at the time, Priti Patel, and her Rwandan counterpart, cost the government £120m.

Mr Johnson said it would help deter people from making the dangerous crossing to the UK and tackle the “barbaric trade in human misery” caused by people traffickers.

Opposition parties and charities deemed the plan “cruel and nasty”, and claimed the policy would break international human rights laws.

There were even reports that the King – then the Prince of Wales – was a critic of the scheme.

But the government pushed ahead, with the first flight to Kigali set to take off in June 2022.

Come the day, there were only seven asylum seekers on board the plane.

Numerous court cases were launched by refugee charities, as well as the Public and Commercial Services union, ahead of take-off, calling the policy “inhumane” and demanding the deportations were stopped.

Protesters also tried to stop the flight, locking themselves together with metal pipes and blockading exits of the Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre at Heathrow, where the migrants were believed to be held.

However, judges in the UK ruled the seven people could be deported, saying there had been an “assurance” from the government that if the policy was found to be unlawful at a later stage, steps would be taken to bring back any migrants.

This didn’t stop further last-minute legal challenges to prevent take-off though.

In the end, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued injunctions to halt the deportations altogether, leaving the plane grounded on a Ministry of Defence runway.

The government said it would appeal against the ruling, with Tory MPs angered that a European court could overrule the decision of English judges.

But campaigners said it showed the “inhumanity” of the plan for the human rights watchdog to intervene.

In the months that followed, there was a change in government, with Liz Truss taking the keys to Number 10 and Suella Braverman heading up the Home Office.

Both women stood by the Rwanda plan and, even when Ms Truss was ousted weeks later, her successor Rishi Sunak also gave it his backing.

The ruling of the EHRC – which ensures the European Human Rights Convention is adhered to – was still fresh in the minds of Tory backbenchers, as they saw it as holding up the policy they believed would stop the boats.

And it led to a number of calls for the UK to leave the convention, though they appeared to remain in the minority.

The plan itself headed back to the courts as campaigners tried a new tactic to stop it in its tracks, launching a judicial review on the Home Office’s assessment of Rwanda as a safe third country.

The government doubled down on its belief in the scheme – with Ms Braverman telling the Conservative Party conference it was her “dream” to see flights take off.

And come December of 2022, that dream looked closer to reality, as the High Court ruled in the favour of ministers, saying the scheme did not breach either the UN’s Refugee Convention or human rights laws, and that Rwanda was a “safe third country” for migrants to be sent to.

But the legal battle was far from over.

Campaigners were then allowed to appeal the ruling in the Court of Appeal, and the three sitting judges overturned the High Court’s decision.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett concluded Rwanda was not a safe place for people to be housed while their asylum claims were processed, adding: “The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed, and unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum process are corrected, removal of asylum seekers will be unlawful.”

The government was outraged, with the prime minister saying he “fundamentally disagreed” with the ruling, and would do “whatever is necessary” to get the removal flights going.

The anger of Ms Braverman and her right-wing supporters also grew, with further demands to leave the ECHR, and others calling for the human rights convention to be overhauled.

The government got approval to appeal that ruling and, as a result, it was sent to the Supreme Court.

The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court President Lord Rees found that the Court of Appeal had been right to overturn the original decision of the High Court.

He said the justices had unanimously concluded those sent to the country would be at “real risk” of being returned home, whether their grounds to claim asylum were justified or not.

The full judgment said those sent to Rwanda would be at risk of re-foulement – where a refugee is returned to their country of origin where there is a substantial risk they could be subjected to torture.

The court ruling said the principle of re-foulement is not just a breach of the European Human Rights Convention, but a number of other international treaties.

Mr Sunak said ministers would now “consider next steps”.

Politics

Make ‘significant adjustments’ to Online Safety Act, X urges govt

Published

7 hours ago

August 2, 2025

admin

X criticises Online Safety Act - and warns it's putting free speech in the UK at risk

The Online Safety Act is putting free speech at risk and needs significant adjustments, Elon Musk’s social network X has warned.

New rules that came into force last week require platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and X – as well as sites hosting pornography – to bring in measures to prove that someone using them is over the age of 18.

The Online Safety Act requires sites to protect children and to remove illegal content, but critics have said that the rules have been implemented too broadly, resulting in the censorship of legal content.

X has warned the act’s laudable intentions were “at risk of being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach”.

It said: “When lawmakers approved these measures, they made a conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of ‘online safety’.

“It is fair to ask if UK citizens were equally aware of the trade-off being made.”

X claims the timetable for platforms to meet mandatory measures had been unnecessarily tight – and despite complying, sites still faced threats of enforcement and fines, “encouraging over-censorship”.

“A balanced approach is the only way to protect individual liberties, encourage innovation and safeguard children. It’s safe to say that significant changes must take place to achieve these objectives in the UK,” it said.

A UK government spokesperson said it is “demonstrably false” that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech.

“As well as legal duties to keep children safe, the very same law places clear and unequivocal duties on platforms to protect freedom of expression,” they added.

Users have complained about age checks that require personal data to be uploaded to access sites that show pornography, and 468,000 people have already signed a petition asking for the new law to be repealed.

In response to the petition, the government said it had “no plans” to reverse the Online Safety Act.

Reform UK’s leader Nigel Farage likened the new rules to “state suppression of genuine free speech” and said his party would ditch the regulations.

Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said on Tuesday that those who wanted to overturn the act were “on the side of predators” – to which Mr Farage demanded an apology, calling Mr Kyle’s comments “absolutely disgusting”.

Regulator Ofcom said on Thursday it had launched an investigation into how four companies – that collectively run 34 pornography sites – are complying with new age-check requirements.

These companies – 8579 LLC, AVS Group Ltd, Kick Online Entertainment S.A. and Trendio Ltd – run dozens of sites, and collectively have more than nine million unique monthly UK visitors, the internet watchdog said.

The regulator said it prioritised the companies based on the risk of harm posed by the services they operated and their user numbers.

It adds to the 11 investigations already in progress into 4chan, as well as an unnamed online suicide forum, seven file-sharing services, and two adult websites.

Ofcom said it expects to make further enforcement announcements in the coming months.

Politics

Inside Jeremy Corbyn’s new party and the battle for leadership

Published

9 hours ago

August 2, 2025

admin

Inside Jeremy Corbyn's new party and the battle for leadership

Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn may be the figureheads of a new left-wing party, but already there is a battle over leadership.

The confusion behind the initial launch speaks to a wider debate happening behind closed doors as to who should steer the party – now and in the future.

Already, in the true spirit of Mr Corbyn’s politics, there is talk of an open leadership contest and grassroots participation.

Some supporters of the new party – which is being temporarily called “Your Party” while a formal name is decided by members – believe that allowing a leadership contest to take place honours Mr Corbyn’s commitment to open democracy.

They point out that under Mr Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, members famously backed plans to make it easier for local constituency parties to deselect sitting MPs – a concept he strongly believed in.

His allies now say the former Labour leader, who is 76, is open to there being a leadership contest for the new party, possibly at its inaugural conference in the autumn, where names lesser known than himself can throw their hat into the ring.

“Jeremy would rather die than not have an open leadership contest,” one source familiar with the internal politics told Sky News.

However, there have been suggestions that Ms Sultana appears to be less keen on the idea of a leadership contest, and that she is more committed to the co-leadership model than her political partner.

Those who have been opposed to the co-leadership model believe it could give Ms Sultana an unfair advantage and exclude other potential candidates from standing in the future.

One source told Sky News they believed Mr Corbyn should lead the party for two years, to get it established, before others are allowed to stand as leader.

They said Ms Sultana, who became an independent MP after she was suspended from Labour for opposing the two-child benefit cap, was “highly ambitious but completely untested as leader” and “had a lot of growing into the role to do”.

“It’s not about her – it’s about taking a democratic approach, which is what we’re supposed to be doing,” they said.

“There are so many people who have done amazing things locally and they need to have a chance to emerge as leaders.

“We are not only fishing from a pool of two people.

“It needs to be an open contest. Nobody needs to be crowned.”

While Mr Corbyn and Ms Sultana undoubtedly have the biggest profiles out of would-be leaders, advocates for a grassroots approach to the leadership point to the success some independent candidates have enjoyed at a local level – for example, 24-year-old British Palestinian Leah Mohammed, who came within 528 votes of unseating Health Secretary Wes Streeting in Ilford North.

Fiona Lali of the Revolutionary Communist Party, who stood in last year’s general election for the Stratford and Bow constituency, has also been mentioned in some circles as someone with potential leadership credentials.

However, sources close to Mr Corbyn and Ms Sultana downplayed suggestions of any divide over the leadership model, pointing out that their joint statement acknowledged that members would “decide the party’s direction” at the inaugural conference in the autumn, including the model of leadership and the policies that are needed to transform society.

A spokesperson for Mr Corbyn told Sky News: “Jeremy will be working with Zarah, his independent colleagues, and people from trade unions and social movements up and down the country to make an autumn conference a reality.

“This will be the moment where people come together to launch a new democratic party that belongs to the members.”

Sky News has approached Ms Sultana for comment.

Politics

DeFi Education Fund urges Senate to strengthen crypto dev protections in draft bill

Published

11 hours ago

August 2, 2025

admin

DeFi Education Fund urges Senate to strengthen crypto dev protections in draft bill

DeFi Education Fund called on the Senate Banking Committee to frame a key crypto market bill in a more tech-neutral way and strengthen crypto developer protections in a recent letter.